Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrette said:
appropriate depends on circumstance, and snark does not bother me; I use it a lot. Intellectual dishonesty bother me, and you continue it now. You act as if our contention lately has been your posting style when you know very well it is the false accusation against The Shrike.

In pretending that our complaint is something different you again act as the victim and the well intended skeptic. Your behavior is not the behavior of either.

Whether you are intellectually dishonest in reality or whether you are a troll, I will refrain from making a judgment upon, but your behavior is consistent with those two qualities, and this latest attempt to redefine what has been at issue is no exception.
Click to expand...

It looks like it was ABP's complaint, he spelled it out.
 
Cervelo said:
Wow Jodie that's mighty smart thinkin on your part...but in reality it looks more like he handed you your butt at some point. Since then you've been on some sort of vendetta.
See the thing is Jodie I've seen your act before over at BFF ;)
I haven't seen anything from you but condescending, insulting, trollish behavior on your part since I've been here.
Click to expand...

He insulted my father, and my parents in general, which was uncalled for, I wouldn't call it handing me my butt.

The only conversations that you and I ever had that stick in my mind was your observation that a lot of the female bigfoot witnesses had a history of abuse in their background and your canoe trips.

If I remember correctly, the most common complaints that I got on the BFF about your posts were exactly what you say I do here. I think it's a matter of perspective. Essentially, we both got banned from the BFFfor mouthing off one too many times.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Before you got here, this was about 3 years ago, I asked ABP if he was a psychologist. He said he wasn't so I base my judgement on that. That, and you can't diagnose anyone over the phone or some other form of social media. By doing that, he's playing his own game.
Click to expand...
Yes of course, how is it possible somebody other than "a psychologist" could know anything about human behavior?! The nerve of some people, and ABP especially, pretending to give us valuable information he obtained from some place other than a textbook. He probably found all the info on Craigslist. What a poser. Pretending to be a psychologist, sheesh, he needs to pay a fine or something huh Jodie. I mean, he told you up front he wasn't one but then whoops, there he is acting just like one and physically forcing his opinion down our throats. And then CHARGING US no less. My card gets billed every damn month. He's gettin' rich I'm tellin ya. There's no doubt you've got a case. I say file the papers.

And ABP you should be ashamed of yourself. Trying to educate us and all. THE NERVE!
 
HarryHenderson said:
Yes of course, how is it possible somebody other than "a psychologist" could know anything about human behavior?! The nerve of some people, and ABP especially, pretending to give us valuable information he obtained from some place other than a textbook. He probably found all the info on Craigslist. What a poser. Pretending to be a psychologist, sheesh, he needs to pay a fine or something huh Jodie. I mean, he told you up front he wasn't one but then whoops, there he is acting just like one and physically forcing his opinion down our throats. And then CHARGING US no less. My card gets billed every damn month. He's gettin' rich I'm tellin ya. There's no doubt you've got a case. I say file the papers.

And ABP you should be ashamed of yourself. Trying to educate us and all. THE NERVE!
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same as a footer claiming to be a researcher discussing his bigfoot wisdom on a forum? I don't see a lot of difference.
 
Jodie said:
Isn't that the same as a footer claiming to be a researcher discussing his bigfoot wisdom on a forum? I don't see a lot of difference.
Click to expand...
You're not even close. Bigfoot is a figment of the imagination. A wholly subjective experience/entity oddly unique to every person. Certainly not a documented species of common animal capable of being (and having been) studied etc. Yet 'human behavior' has been studied since the beginning of human consciousness. An accumulation of knowledge theoretically so vast it's the universe compared to the non-existent "knowledge" of a non-existent beast. Yet you insanely equate the two as essentially one and the same.

Why should we ever listen to anything you say?
 
First, there's nothing wrong with the style of your posts, Jodie. There is no JREF/ISF posting style that includes a prescribed amount of snark. Your issues here of late stem from problems in substance, not style.

As for our Alaskan friend, Harry has it right: a dude on the Internet posts stuff; we are free to accept, ignore, or challenge that stuff. It matters not what his education or background might be, the key is if the substance of those posts makes sense, is supported by evidence, has a theoretical underpinning, etc. Again, it's substance.

Now ABP's style can be abrasive and snarky. If he's written something that crosses a line for you, then report it.
 
Jodie said:
He insulted my father, and my parents in general, which was uncalled for, I wouldn't call it handing me my butt.

The only conversations that you and I ever had that stick in my mind was your observation that a lot of the female bigfoot witnesses had a history of abuse in their background and your canoe trips.

If I remember correctly, the most common complaints that I got on the BFF about your posts were exactly what you say I do here. I think it's a matter of perspective. Essentially, we both got banned from the BFFfor mouthing off one too many times.
Click to expand...

Like I said Jodie I've seen your act before.
There's no doubt you got some memory issues, but we all know how that story ends, again seen it before.
Let me share another great example of you shooting your mouth off without the facts. Instead of asking why I got banned from BFF, you've assumed you know why.
Here's the reason they gave, which I'm pretty sure I've posted on this site previously.....


As far as your issues with ABP, the only advice I can offer is....regardless of how your issue got started with him, your the one who looks like an Internet stalker/troll at this point.
Your incessant badgering of his posts and your unfounded/unsubstantiated attacks on The Shrike reveal some sort of flaw that's bizarre IMO and can't be very healthy behavior.
But hey if your having fun and enjoy it...I'll countinue to call out your behavior as I see it :)
 
It is great fun when a Footer comes on here to disrupt, and we have to figure out if the Footer is Over or Under Medicated.
 
Cervelo said:
Like I said Jodie I've seen your act before.
There's no doubt you got some memory issues, but we all know how that story ends, again seen it before.
Let me share another great example of you shooting your mouth off without the facts. Instead of asking why I got banned from BFF, you've assumed you know why.
Here's the reason they gave, which I'm pretty sure I've posted on this site previously.....
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/7884389F-A208-46C9-9E40-0D76885B0FCE.jpg[/qimg]

As far as your issues with ABP, the only advice I can offer is....regardless of how your issue got started with him, your the one who looks like an Internet stalker/troll at this point.
Your incessant badgering of his posts and your unfounded/unsubstantiated attacks on The Shrike reveal some sort of flaw that's bizarre IMO and can't be very healthy behavior.
But hey if your having fun and enjoy it...I'll countinue to call out your behavior as I see it :)
Click to expand...

Based on what we talked about in the bat cave, they were looking for a reason, you seemed to have given it to them. I never minded your posts but the "serious researchers" put up a fuss about you and a few other forum members.

Why would you create two accounts, were you arguing with yourself over there? I don't see the point.
 
HarryHenderson said:
You're not even close. Bigfoot is a figment of the imagination. A wholly subjective experience/entity oddly unique to every person. Certainly not a documented species of common animal capable of being (and having been) studied etc. Yet 'human behavior' has been studied since the beginning of human consciousness. An accumulation of knowledge theoretically so vast it's the universe compared to the non-existent "knowledge" of a non-existent beast. Yet you insanely equate the two as essentially one and the same.

Why should we ever listen to anything you say?
Click to expand...

It would be very dull here if all you ever did was sit around and agree with each other.

You have someone with an "opinion" that is spouting that opinion as if it's fact when the only evidence examined is on the internet. Not to mention that he has no expertise in the area to be interpreting what he's reading and applying it in an inappropriate way. It's not really all that different. Pseudoscience comes in many forms and degrees but it's still pseudoscience if you don't have the evidence.

Don't misunderstand, I don't disagree with the BLAARG hypothesis in general when applied to the money making aspect of footery, hoaxing, etc...Kit had something similar going on well before ABP came up with the BLAARG called "Woods and Wildman" that I thought was more accurate, ABP just takes it much more seriously and to a higher level. What amazes me is that you give your own a free pass without applying the same criteria that you do with the footers.
 
Last edited:
Here's an even better example of the lack of distinction. I remember discussions about the tapetum lucidum as a reason bigfoot's eyes shine, never mind that in 50 years no one has found a trace of the creature. Someone took something from a source on biology and physiology and tried to make it fit part of the myth.

How is that different when a lay person reads several sources on psychology and tries to make it fit with what people are posting on the internet? You might agree with it but it's not founded on real evidence.
 
Last edited:
Donn said:
The post you replied to did not ask a yes or no question. Also, great job on repeating the lie.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to count the number of times this lie has been told across these two trolling posters and how many years they have been doing it.

Both knew the first time, the tenth time, the hundredth time that it was a lie.

It is an incredible thing: much more incredible than a bigfoot sighting. We absolutely must seek explanation for this trolling. To see something so amazing and fail to explain it is a huge oversight in understanding our subject.

Separate yourself from the manipulative fray and ask yourself what you would think if someone told you a poster on a discussion board was going to tell the same lie hundreds of times, be corrected on it every time, and then tell the same lie again as if it had never happened before?

The responsible thing to do is consult the correct literature on pathological lying, because this is far beyond normal behavior: it is so abnormal as to properly call it pathological. I feel privileged to be witnessing this incredible thing in a living laboratory. I would not thought it possible for people to lie so many times so shamelessly.

Sure, people here don't understand it, and make the mistake of projecting their own personality onto the troll in trying to figure it out.

They lie because it gives them pleasure. Talk about a face-palm slap moment when you finally have that terribly simple insight.

psychopathic lies are often told because they bring a shallow form of pleasure to the liar. This is called “Duper’s Delight.” This explains why psychopaths sometimes lie when it is completely unnecessary or when the truth would be more advantageous. Psychopaths also include a variety of details in their lies, not only because it makes their lies sound more credible, but also because they enjoy constructing a false reality and making others believe it. It feeds their need for power and provides them with sick entertainment.
Click to expand...

https://www.psychopathfree.com/content.php?296-Pathological-Lying-A-Psychopathic-Manipulation-Tool

Internet trolls, in the publications I have cited elsewhere, are referred to clinically as "every day sadists". To frustrate people, cause them psychological harm, by repeating a malicious lie endlessly is sadistic behavior.

Normal people feel shame in lying. Which of us would lie a hundred times on this forum, be corrected every time, and continue to do it? We wouldn't do it the FIRST time, let alone the second after being busted on the lie. Knowing how much angst you are creating for others - it is unconscionable to us. But it gives pleasure to a sadist.

To the dark triad personality types, lying is the smart thing to do. If you want to understand Roger Patterson, Matt Moneymaker et. al, their commonalities are not that they were 'footers, but that they lie without shame.

Whenever you see someone coming unglued, positively foaming at the mouth as to why lying should be minimized and even cast in noble cultural light just ask yourself if that person is a liar. Well of course people who lie as a conscious strategy in manipulating others want to minimize their despicable behavior.

The defense of lying about bigfoot has nothing to do with bigfoot. Someone who has made lying to your face the central feature of their role on this board is defending themselves and their own lying. They make you out to be a horrible person for doing what this forum was established to do: expose con-men/liars, the dark triad personality types preying upon others.

When you are a liar to the core, a troller, a game-player, then you have to attack anyone who points out your lying. You make them out to be a person that does nothing but accuse people of lying. It is one of the reasons they lie about the BLAARG hypothesis not allowing for pareidolia/misidentification: to trivialize it by making a straw man out of it.

Because it is important to cast us in a bad light as unreasonable people who just call everyone a liar. So when the troll is lying, he is just a victim of the bad people on this forum who always accuse others of lying, all the time about everything.


Look across woo in general - the spoon benders, mind readers, etc. What personality types gravitate towards these con men professions? Normal people? No, because normal people feel bad about duping others in these ways.

To study this subject (woo) without attention to the psychology is to not understand it at all. Uri Geller knows he cannot bend spoons with his mind. To argue about that with him would be ridiculous. He is lying. He just has no conscience about lying so it is easy for him, and gives him delight.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
First, there's nothing wrong with the style of your posts, Jodie. There is no JREF/ISF posting style that includes a prescribed amount of snark. Your issues here of late stem from problems in substance, not style.

As for our Alaskan friend, Harry has it right: a dude on the Internet posts stuff; we are free to accept, ignore, or challenge that stuff. It matters not what his education or background might be, the key is if the substance of those posts makes sense, is supported by evidence, has a theoretical underpinning, etc. Again, it's substance.

Now ABP's style can be abrasive and snarky. If he's written something that crosses a line for you, then report it.
Click to expand...

You mean assertions I can't justify with exact wording? That's called doublespeak Shrike. It's akin to saying "I give folks the benefit of the doubt but since I don't believe in ______, and they won't listen to my reasoning, they must be lying or crazy."
 
Jodie said:
Someone took something from a source on biology and physiology and tried to make it fit part of the myth.
Click to expand...
Yes, someone suggested something even less likely than the likelihood of bigfoot. No evidence other than the original anecdotal claims was ever introduced to provide support for the idea.

In contrast . . .

Jodie said:
How is that different when a lay person reads several sources on psychology and tries to make it fit with what people are posting on the internet? You might agree with it but it's not founded on real evidence.
Click to expand...
The evidence is what the people are posting on the Internet, and it's quite real.

Let's apply some science and propose both ideas as hypotheses:

1) Bigfoot/wood apes possess a tapetum lucidum*.

To evaluate this hypothesis, we would need to a) get a bigfoot and b) dissect its eyeballs. Good luck with that. The hypothesis might as well be that dragons breathe fire. Because bigfoots are mythical creatures, the hypothesis cannot be evaluated - it is unfalsifiable and, thus, pseudoscientific.

2) Some proportion of bigfoot proponents are only pretending to believe in bigfoot.

To evaluate this hypothesis, we can make observations of what people claim about bigfoot online and establish criteria by which we might judge the person to be sincere in the claim. For example, we might decide a priori that any claimed prolonged observation of a bigfoot at close range would be most likely fabricated. We could posit other behaviors that would be expected of the claimant (like calling police) if the person was sincere. The specific criteria are irrelevant; the point is that data could be collected and analyzed based solely on what claimants post on the Internet. Therefore, the hypothesis is legitimate/scientific because it is falsifiable.



*Irony alert: claims of a tapetum lucidum in a bigfoot report very strongly suggest misidentifications to me.
 
Jodie said:
You mean assertions I can't justify with exact wording at all?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If you make unsubstantiated claims, boast about how right you are about those claims, and fail miserably in your attempt to produce evidence in support of those claims, then this is a forum in which those behaviors will be criticized.
 
Meaning because we have proof bigfoot hoaxers exist it makes the BLAARG hypothesis falsifiable? It only took one so therefore the BLAARG isn't based on psuedoscience. Ok, I see your point there.

I still don't think you can make clinical judgements about people via the internet, no medical professional will ever agree with that premise.
 
Jodie said:
You mean like this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10840996#post10840996

I think you're saying the footers are all liars and crazy.
Click to expand...
I've highlighted the word that's incorrect.
TheShrike said:
It feels like I addressed dozens of these in my time at the BFF, and not once did some footer respond, "You know, you're right. There really is no valid comparison between this just-discovered __________ and the still undiscovered bigfoot."

Why was that response never forthcoming? Was I addressing people just plain too stupid to understand? That's hard to imagine.

What about the Meldrums and the Bindernagels of the world? Surely they understand the problem with such comparisons, but instead of popping in to the BFF or the JREF now and then to rein those 'footers in, these guys use these examples to strengthen their case (and book sales) with them. Wouldn't that mean that they're pretending to believe?

So much of bigfootery starts to make sense when you consider that some non-trivial proportion of proponents - including some of the leading lights - are just pretending to believe.
Click to expand...


I've highlighted the words that indicate you are incorrect.
 
There are a number of studies by clinical PhD's doing exactly that - making clinical judgement based upon internet posting - and I have cited those articles here. An example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

Remember that a troll has no shame in lying and even when being shown professional articles doing exactly what the troll says no medical professional would ever do, the troll will continue to deny.

I just cited another article explaining why the troll lies, in terms of impression management. We attack someone citing professional articles making clinical judgements about people based upon their internet posting. How? By saying the very articles he is citing do not exist.

It's gaslighting: it is merely an optical illusion, this article from Psychology Today, in turn based upon the publication in Personality and Individual Differences.

Listen to me, the troll, instead of trusting your lying eyes seeing this thing I say does not exist: medical professionals publishing clinical observations about internet trolls. Specifically,that they come from the Dark Triad of personality types.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Based on what we talked about in the bat cave, they were looking for a reason, you seemed to have given it to them. I never minded your posts but the "serious researchers" put up a fuss about you and a few other forum members.

Why would you create two accounts, were you arguing with yourself over there? I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

I asked several times for evidence that I had.
Never got a response.
 
Resume said:
I've highlighted the word that's incorrect.



I've highlighted the words that indicate you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

You left out the phrase that disqualifies anything else you said. Now it's liars, crazy and stupidity, that's not a vast improvement.


Why was that response never forthcoming? Was I addressing people just plain too stupid to understand? That's hard to imagine.


Doublespeak, your qualifiers after the fact don't match what you said prior to those statements.
 
Okay let's try this from a difference angle.

Jodie what is the correct response to someone making an unsupported claim? Please be specific.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
It would be interesting to count the number of times this lie has been told across these two trolling posters and how many years they have been doing it.

Both knew the first time, the tenth time, the hundredth time that it was a lie.

It is an incredible thing: much more incredible than a bigfoot sighting. We absolutely must seek explanation for this trolling. To see something so amazing and fail to explain it is a huge oversight in understanding our subject.

Separate yourself from the manipulative fray and ask yourself what you would think if someone told you a poster on a discussion board was going to tell the same lie hundreds of times, be corrected on it every time, and then tell the same lie again as if it had never happened before?

The responsible thing to do is consult the correct literature on pathological lying, because this is far beyond normal behavior: it is so abnormal as to properly call it pathological. I feel privileged to be witnessing this incredible thing in a living laboratory. I would not thought it possible for people to lie so many times so shamelessly.

Sure, people here don't understand it, and make the mistake of projecting their own personality onto the troll in trying to figure it out.

They lie because it gives them pleasure. Talk about a face-palm slap moment when you finally have that terribly simple insight.



https://www.psychopathfree.com/content.php?296-Pathological-Lying-A-Psychopathic-Manipulation-Tool

Internet trolls, in the publications I have cited elsewhere, are referred to clinically as "every day sadists". To frustrate people, cause them psychological harm, by repeating a malicious lie endlessly is sadistic behavior.

Normal people feel shame in lying. Which of us would lie a hundred times on this forum, be corrected every time, and continue to do it? We wouldn't do it the FIRST time, let alone the second after being busted on the lie. Knowing how much angst you are creating for others - it is unconscionable to us. But it gives pleasure to a sadist.

To the dark triad personality types, lying is the smart thing to do. If you want to understand Roger Patterson, Matt Moneymaker et. al, their commonalities are not that they were 'footers, but that they lie without shame.

Whenever you see someone coming unglued, positively foaming at the mouth as to why lying should be minimized and even cast in noble cultural light just ask yourself if that person is a liar. Well of course people who lie as a conscious strategy in manipulating others want to minimize their despicable behavior.

The defense of lying about bigfoot has nothing to do with bigfoot. Someone who has made lying to your face the central feature of their role on this board is defending themselves and their own lying. They make you out to be a horrible person for doing what this forum was established to do: expose con-men/liars, the dark triad personality types preying upon others.

When you are a liar to the core, a troller, a game-player, then you have to attack anyone who points out your lying. You make them out to be a person that does nothing but accuse people of lying. It is one of the reasons they lie about the BLAARG hypothesis not allowing for pareidolia/misidentification: to trivialize it by making a straw man out of it.

Because it is important to cast us in a bad light as unreasonable people who just call everyone a liar. So when the troll is lying, he is just a victim of the bad people on this forum who always accuse others of lying, all the time about everything.


Look across woo in general - the spoon benders, mind readers, etc. What personality types gravitate towards these con men professions? Normal people? No, because normal people feel bad about duping others in these ways.

To study this subject (woo) without attention to the psychology is to not understand it at all. Uri Geller knows he cannot bend spoons with his mind. To argue about that with him would be ridiculous. He is lying. He just has no conscience about lying so it is easy for him, and gives him delight.
Click to expand...

All I said was that you presented your theory as fact, you have referred to it as a study. On the surface it fits exactly what we see in footers but the premise is unfounded because you based that on internet postings rather than true clinical evaluations. It's an opinion that is not based on evidence.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
There are a number of studies by clinical PhD's doing exactly that - making clinical judgement based upon internet posting - and I have cited those articles here. An example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

Remember that a troll has no shame in lying and even when being shown professional articles doing exactly what the troll says no medical professional would ever do, the troll will continue to deny.

I just cited another article explaining why the troll lies, in terms of impression management. We attack someone citing professional articles making clinical judgements about people based upon their internet posting. How? By saying the very articles he is citing do not exist.

It's gaslighting: it is merely an optical illusion, this article from Psychology Today, in turn based upon the publication in Personality and Individual Differences.

Listen to me, the troll, instead of trusting your lying eyes seeing this thing I say does not exist: medical professionals publishing clinical observations about internet trolls. Specifically,that they come from the Dark Triad of personality types.
Click to expand...

If you were appropriately trained you would recognize the limitations of the so called evidence. You can't make a clinical diagnosis of any kind based on what someone posts on the internet.

If someone here PM'ed me and told me that they had been contracting every 5 minutes for two hours I couldn't tell them they were in labor. The only way to diagnose labor is with cervical change. Definitive diagnosis requires some kind of face to face evaluation otherwise it's an opinion.

Once again, this is just an opinion among medical professionals. Most people who delve into psychology to the depth that you are doing are generally looking for answers for their own issues. If that's true in your case, I hope you find what you are looking for because you just seem miserable to me.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
You left out the phrase that disqualifies anything else you said. Now it's liars, crazy and stupidity, that's not a vast improvement.
Click to expand...
You said all. That wasn't said or even implied in The Shrike's post. You were wrong, just admit it.

Why was that response never forthcoming? Was I addressing people just plain too stupid to understand? That's hard to imagine.


Doublespeak, your qualifiers after the fact don't match what you said prior to those statements.
Click to expand...
He was addressing a very specific circumstance; you are conflating that circumstance with the whole of his criticism of bigfootery. You are generalizing, and you are wrong. Just admit it.
 
Jodie said:
You can't make a clinical diagnosis of any kind based on what someone posts on the internet.
Click to expand...
The BLAARG hypothesis is not evaluated according to the content of any ONE person's post. It is tested by collecting data on the posts of a large sample of people. I have clearly spelled out in post #940 how to evaluate the hypothesis scientifically.
 
But without a clinical basis all conclusions are null and void.

As for stupidity on the BFF- I was the one poster that conceded your argument regarding the fossil record and pterodactyl sightings in the Amazon. I respect your knowledge regarding biology, and you were right, but you and many others here are blind to your own human frailty.

I made a mistake with ABP, I should have shown him a great deal more compassion, for that I apologize.
 
Jodie said:
But without a clinical basis all conclusions are null and void.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by clinical basis?

Jodie said:
As for stupidity on the BFF- I was the one poster that conceded your argument regarding the fossil record and pterodactyl sightings in the Amazon.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then that means that you were NOT one of the stupid ones.

Jodie said:
. . . you and many others here are blind to your own human frailty.
Click to expand...
Lemme guess - you had a conversation with me in which I claimed to have no human frailties? Could you be more specific about the claim or, you know, provide some evidence to substantiate it?
 
The cunning troll doesn't post too much. Jerrys hit-and-run trolling style runs less risk of looking like a fountain of incomprehensible gibberish. Running from questions beats making up answers.

Gaming is lying, which is always such a complicated business. The initial lies require more lies to cover up, more evasion and self-contradictory twisting in the wind...

Until people have to ask what the hell you are doing. It makes no sense. Unless you are just trolling, and in this case with no particular character role being played. So you don't have the internal consistency constraint of the character role troll. That is a harder game to play, and the nitwit troll can't do it.
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
So your game is to take someone's actual words and interpet then into what you "think" they are saying :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Cervelo, if someone says they can't imagine that all of those people on the BFF could be that stupid,then qualifies that statement with some people are this, and some are that, it's the same thing as saying the footers are either all liars, crazy, or stupid. I don't see how you could interpret what the Shrike says any other way. I'm not going to sit here and act like it means something else entirely.
 
The Shrike said:
What do you mean by clinical basis?
Click to expand...
ABP refers to this theory as a study, has referred to our discussion as a survey, when it's simply an opinion he's put out on the forum. You can't make a clinical diagnosis or judgement based on internet postings period. If the basis for his hypothesis is unsound from the start it makes no difference how much literature he pulls to apply to the situation. It might be falsifiable because bigfoot hoaxers exist but you have no basis for stating what the motivation is without some kind of face to face evaluation or investigation of the circumstances. The BLAARG hypothesis is about what motivates the footers to be the way they are not that they are out there pulling the wool over everyone's eyes that are gullible enough to fall for the shenanigans.

If that's true, then that means that you were NOT one of the stupid ones.
Click to expand...
Well with my memory being what it is of late, it could have been Parnassus.

Lemme guess - you had a conversation with me in which I claimed to have no human frailties? Could you be more specific about the claim or, you know, provide some evidence to substantiate it?
Click to expand...

No, no such luck. In answer to your second question, I just gave you the post where you said you couldn't imagine how all of the footers on the BFF could be that stupid. What other explanation could there be, ruling out stupidity, than that they are either lying or crazy? How else could anyone read that? If you can't see that it won't matter how many of your posts I point out, you still won't see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom